Wow! Gone for a couple of days and come back to another Vista vs. XP (and maybe Ubuntu) "debate."

I'll add only this. I'm as just old as PC_Tool (but far less cranky) and have voluntarily adopted new OSs as soon as they were available. I even bought new hardware, including a beefy graphics card, specifically for Vista.

However, I ended up doing something with Vista that I have never done before with a new OS on any platform. (Luckily, I somehow avoided ME.) I removed Vista, shelved any intentions of using it again, and reinstalled XP.

Oh, and Ubuntu? ("That's all I have to say about that." ~Forrest Gump)

Some of the reservations people have about Vista stem from the UAC security. But I run WinXP in a Limited User account, which very few people do. All my programs run too, even the third party ones that use ancient Win 9x programming methods.

The new UAC will make things much simpler for me. Some people think that entering a password is a big deal; they should try running WinXP in a Limited User Account.

I don't really have anything to add, other than I just wanted to be the 112th comment posted. :)

Well don't forget Microsoft also officially announced that They will continue to sell/prodice copies of XP til June 2008 now, a whole 6 months longer. Also saying SP3 is the last update to XP is not accurate, per their EOL policy security updates will continue to rollout as needed, just ike with Windows 200 now until possibly 2014.

Will anyone STILL be using XP in another 7 years we'll see, but 2000 is still popular now, though that is slowly diminishing with Vista out since that is making XP populra stable simple OS.

Hopefully we can use XP until they decide to make a real OS. Vista is a complete and utter disaster.

this is from 2002!

'somthing old, somthing new'

http://www.sciforums.com...ws-XP-Sucks-t-6958.html

"Windows XP Sucks"

No kidding!

It has crap for compatibility with older programs (example, those created to run on 9x)

It's not secure at all. Forget about hackers breaking in, microsoft will be the one stealing info from you! (try doing a search in your local intranet zone, or viewing a movie on Windows Media player 7.0 or greater - or heck, getting a microbrain DVD decoder)

Get yourself Windows 2000 Professional.

I agree. My friend bought a new pc with Vista. I fooled around with it. Found it very non user friendly. Just like IE7. They should look at Mac and the other os out there and try and up the ante on them.

Windows XP does not SUCK! You Suck! XP is SO much better than Vista...Who wants free viruses you can upgrade to Vista...Thanks for wasting my time on that topic...A lot of "know it alls" on this site...who don't know crap...
XP is the ONLY OPERATING SYSTEM, where Windows Actually knew what they where DOING!

When XP came out many people said the same thing that you are saying about Vista. That is all he is saying. Nice attack very productive. I am looking forward to SP1 for Vista.

Well then, you look forward to all the problems of Vista, headaches, and much much more...When your computer gets attacked, and you say it was your fault, think again, Vista/MS should be the person you blame, have "fun" with Vista...Why pay for a operating system that does everything XP does but a "few" changes that does not make a difference in the performance of the computer itself. XP SP3 is going to knock Vista right off the spotlight and I can hardly wait....for what people are going to say about XP SP3, goodbye Vista, Hello SP3!

First off, lay off the caffeine.

Second, you are an idiot.

Since, Vista is so new and less people have it, there are more viruses and malware for XP.

XP is 6 years old of course its going to be better as you are used to using it and Vista has only been around for a short time.

Vista does more then just a few changes, you just haven't obviousily used it. Most of it is under the hood work but there still are quite a bit of upgrades on it.

So because someone has Vista they are more likely to get attacked? Seriousily? What kind of sense does this make?

"XP3 is going to knock Vista right off the spotlight"

You do realize its just all the patches you have already downloaded with no new features right?

This is the same argument Windows 2000 users used when XP came out, you guys need a new hobby. Get a mac?

First, your the idiot.

Second, you have no right to judge me. Neither to you to say that Vista is alright when it is not. So what if it has under the hood features, it is still junk and many people would agree that VISTA SUCKS...There are not any more viruses and malware for XP?!?!?!?!What they heck of statement is that!!!! XP IS SO MUCH MORE SECURE THAN VISTA, WHAT PLANET DID YOU COME OFF YOU RETART...You may say that I do not know crap and deep down you have know idea that I have had experiences, and I know what the heck I am talking about. I can judge Vista how I want to, and yeah everyone has their own saying in it. BUT LOOK AT THE FACTS!!! Here is an article that will back me up, way more than anyone on this stupid site. You are one JERK that I do not like to argue with! SHUT UP! You have no idea what you are talking about!
The website address:
http://www.microsoft-wat...vista_none_for_all.html

And another:
http://www.microsoft-wat...snt_vistas_failure.html

Another:
http://www.microsoft-wat..._you_pay_for_vista.html

Now make sure you read all the comments! Retart! Before you leave another comment on what I am trying to say here!

You're a moron.

You're still a moron.

And, it's "retard" not retart.

It is YOU ARE not your.

LOL XP is more secure then Vista, that's too funny.

UAC alone makes Vista more secure and add that IE7 now runs in a secure mode to prevent damage to the OS.

You should probably read the article as most of it states the headaches are BECAUSE of the increased security measures.

Obviousily, you must be 12 or have the maturity of one as you cannot compose rational thoughts.

LOL @ facts, so a bunch of people on a msg board is facts now? REALLY? Its just an opinion is all.

You should slow down, read what you typed so it makes somewhat of sense to someone who tries decyphering what you are saying.

Oh, you don't know crap and have no clue what you are talking about.

So 132 people on a msg board is proof? I am betting half of them are the same people replying to their own posts.

Oh, Shut The h*** up! You are are all a bunch of "geeks" who think that you know it all but you don't. Just I am done here, leave me alone. Everyone has their own saying, just stop! One final question; Did you read ALL the articles?

I JUST GAVE YOU PROOF AND A LOT MORE IS COMING HERE TOM, SO JUST HANG ON AND I WILL GET THAT TO YOU ASAP!
You are a very prideful person, (which is not a good thing) and a jerk...Welcome to the world of the so called "geeks"...LOL...

Here are some more websites:
Take a look for yourself;

http://digg.com/security...ecure_than_XP_Kaspersky

http://arstechnica.com/n...ure-than-xp-report.html

http://apcmag.com/5049/10_reasons_not_to_get_vista

http://digg.com/software...easons_not_to_get_Vista

http://www.ratman87.com/archives/25

Ok, I am done with this debate. I am leaving it at that, and I do not give a rats butt what you have to say about it! Windows XP Home Edition Rocks and Windows Vista SUCKS! LEAVE IT ALONE, I AM GETTIN SICK OF THIS DEBATE! And for your information, I am 17 and I am in MACTC, so you have no room to talk to me-saying I have no experience, bull.

It is not often I bother to post any comments, but reading this I am unable to help myself. Being 17 shows you have no real experience, I have been working with computers for longer than you have been alive.
Here are some quick facts for you.
-Windows XP (Home, Pro & MCE) is a Windows NT based system (first released in 1993 - 14 years ago). It is based on a platform that is aged and has many known security issues that are not able to be patched.
-Vista is based on Windows Server 2003 (many will claim that this too was based on Windows NT but most of it was completely rewritten code), while it does have some security issues they are far less in number and less critical than most of the XP ones.
-Service Pack 3 for XP is only a roll-up of the current patches already issued by Microsoft, at this stage it will include no new features, nor any improvements.
-Vista does not have all the problems that many people claim, most software will run very happily on Vista as long as the right settings are used.
-Many people are trying to run Vista on older components that only just meet the minimum recomendations, while Vista will run on these systems with most of the 'eye candy' disabled it is not recomended and as a result the system will run rather slowly.
-I notice that the links to the first 'proofs' you posted were all to Mary Folley's site Microsoft Watch, while everything she says does have some merit, you must remember that she only looks at the possible problems and areas she considers do not live up to standard. She has made a name for herself by doing this and often blowing many minor problems out of proportion.
-The APC article '10 Reasons Not To Get Vista' was written and published at almost the same time Vista was released, stories from later editions show many of Vista's strengths over XP and how to overcome many of the early problem people encountered.
-The debate about which version is better is not new, it is one that will come up every time a new version of an operating system is released. It has happened with every release I can remember, from DOS v's Win95 onwards, there are always a few people who claim that the older system is and will remain better, they are normally the people who have managed to grasp much of what the GUI they prefer offers without truly understanding how the operating system itself works.
-Finally it doesnt matter if you personally prefer XP over Vista, eventually you will have no choice but to upgrade. (Well as suggested you could get a mac, or if you need to save a few dollars you could even use Linux, both of which unfortunatly do not have the same ammount third party support (read - games, applications, etc), but with your vast experience you could probably write your own.

Are you really that stupid or making a joke?

Well then, can you give me some sites that have information on what Windows XP was based on? Sites that show what XP was based on?

Yes at 17 you know everything about windows. That tells us everything that we need to know. Vista is a good OS has some issues but SP1 will fix them. Many have been fixed already. You were to young when XP came out to understand any of the issues with it's release. People don't accept change very well and you are great example of this. Gald to hear that you are moving on.

http://www.google.com/help/basics.html
That’s a good start..
Vista is an evolution in the product cycle, if you want to you can hang on for as long as you are able, but I rather get into the new areas first, if you stay with XP then you’re going to stay behind the dwindling remains..

"Windows XP (Home, Pro & MCE) is a Windows NT based system (first released in 1993 - 14 years ago). It is based on a platform that is aged and has many known security issues that are not able to be patched."
"-Vista is based on Windows Server 2003.."

This is wildly inaccurate and proves nothing if it were.

XP (NT5.1) was an update of 2000 (NT5). As with anything, there were changes in 2000, and then in XP that made going back and fixing bugs that related to all 3 more and more difficult. We have and are still going to uncover bugs and vulnerabilities that affect XP that go back as far as NT 3.1 (less and less as time goes on), but the "oldest OS affected" will only reflect the supported OS'es at the time. I don't see how pointing out that NT has issues that will remain unpatched (on older versions) reflects at all on XP.

Saying Vista is based on 2003 is meaningless. If you are going to slam the NT codebase, you have to slam 2003 too. 2003 was branched off of XP. Rebranding occurred, server daemons were added in, whatever else was changed to make it into the "server os" but there was no less relation to XP and 2003 than there was 2000 Pro to 2000 Server except the release dates and updated core files which made it into XP in patches anyway. 2003 didn't even include the XP SP2 Security improvements until it's SP1 came out. There's nothing that says server 2003 SP1 was better that XP SP2 at the core.

When it was time for Vista to be branched from somewhere, M$ branched Vista off of Server 2003 likely because the 2003 SP1 milestone just happened to be newer as a package, although a post-SP2 XP slipstreamed install would be at the same patch level.

Although some parts of Vista will be different than it's predecessors, you can't begin to tell me that NT 3.1 thru Vista don't share some common code and that there couldn't be vulnerability found in Vista that would affect Vista down through the unsupported versions.

No, I am being real here! Give me some real sites that back up what you are trying to say! Back yourself up! List some websites here!

Here is the site for all you xp haters; prove you wrong in a heart beat..
http://www.betanews.com/...r_Than_Vista/1192031620

Explain to me what a MACTC is? Do you mean MCT?
Beacuse I've never heard of an MACTC and I have more than a few Certs from MS

I have just not seen any good reason to upgrade from XP. I used to be an early adopter, bleeding edge techniphile. MS has cured me of that.

For businesses there is even less reason to upgrade. There are forture 100 banks that are still running XP sp1. There are millions of PC's out there that MS will begin charging enhanced support fees for in order for them to keep running xp, in order to do this they need to support the product. I expect them to keep up with security fixes and possibly another sp in a year or so.
Right now they are beginning their FUD campaign to get corporate customers to start setting aside budget for the hardware upgrades and licensing fees needed for the Vista update. When it gets closer and the beancounters see just how much this will cost, they will put a stop to any upgrades on most large corporate clients. 3 years from now, there will still be huge companies running xp on the desktop. I say this because they have been buying new pcs ever 3 or 4 years and up until recently, not all new PC's sold were Vista ready in the high quantity business configurations.

Most can just ignore this announcement.

Im sure its the last service pack, not the last security update.

I own two XP computers. One blue screens 3 times a week (but that's due to one of my ram sticks being bad), the other works fines all of the time. I use an XP machine at work, that one is fine as well.

I still think it's just a simple arguement, Vista needs more power, so older computers suck with it, and newer ones dominate.

One disadvantage to XP may be that hackers, etc, have been able to tear at it for 6 years.

I slighly lean towards XP, but that's because I use 3 XP computers throughout the week. Also, I just don't think that $100 is worth the upgrade.

Also, my brother got a new PC with it on it, and it had to be reset shortly after purchase. But he's always installing random programs, so you never know.

"One blue screens 3 times a week (but that's due to one of my ram sticks being bad)"

Erm... fix it?

i read this forum. i see incredible complaining about vista everywhere. it runs mint for me. how come no one complains about heinz ketchup or coca cola? pc illiterate nimbesols. i think.

The word is "imbecile".

How can you claim Vista has no problems? Maybe you're just lucky. Real lucky. A lot luckier than the rest of us.

Hey, here's a thought:

If you installed Vista, or bought a new system, and it was working great...would you bother to post on BN about it?

Especially if it didn't really matter all that much to you?

I'm just guessing, but it's very likely the reason we see more complaints (about anything) online is simply because those for whom it's working have better things to do than surf the net and say 'Hey, it works!'.

Amen brother. I really love the one about running the best and latest hardware. If he owns it, how can it be the best and latest? Another example of the North Carolina Equine Paradox:"Why are there so many more horses asses than horses"?

obviously I’m not suggesting i have the best hardware, I’m saying you need to have the best stuff, quad core or more would be nice, its a cat and mouse game. its nice to have explorer open instantly.. with anything less I have to wait seconds.. trust me, its fast.. costs alot but its really fast. you cant expect a XP computer to be able to run vista in the same level of performance. vista is slower.. on same hardware, you cant suggest anything else. but you will have to change.. and you will.

A good point!
Both Heinz Ketchup and Coca Cola are old products still going strong. Why change cola or ketchup if there is nothing wrong with the current tastes? Same with XP! Why bother to get Vista at all ? You will notice that I stayed away from saying "upgrade to Vista" as it is not an upgrade but a step backwards.
I would be willing to bet that Vista will disappear just as quickly as Millenium did!
As for complaints about Vista please remember that so far it only has a fraction of users that XP had by this stage in its release. Without any doubt the complaints about Vista are only the tip of the iceberg. Wait until others get it, the complaints list will just grow and grow. I would also wonder how many were forced in to buying Vista on a laptop etc and ended up taking it off in favour of XP. "Runs mint for me" well maybe there are users who actually want to use their computer to achieve something. I would also claim that it "runs mint for me" if I just wanted to look at the pretty graphics interface.

I've been running Windows Vista 64 for about 2 months now on my home machine with no problems.

I've also been application testing on a test box of Windows Vista 32 at work for when we transition to Vista from XP.

Very few issues, definitely not enough to warrant saying it sucks.

If your talking about driver problems, that is a problem with the manufacturer of the device you bought, not with Vista itself.

I use vista at work on all the new computers,

you do need lots of ram, good hardware.. fast hard disk. Vista will be really good in the next 1-2 Years as people drop their rubbish computers, on my work machine,

4gigs ram dualcore@3.2ghz 2x750gb 7200 hdd + 4gbUSB(ready boost) asus mobo.

my pc NEVER EVER EVER crashes, runs super smooth and runs EVERYTHING i use.

just know that you need to BEST LATEST and FASTEST hardware, just like xp on year one, noone could run it properly...celeron 300 @450 voodoo2 128mb sdram 10.2gb 5400 hdd etc.. ran like crap..

JUST WAIT.. you will see.. or install UBUNTU.. (on my laptop) thats better then XP.. smoother then vista on a lower powered PC.

my three cents

I agree. Vista is great and stable in a new hardware as well as was XP back in 2001.

Those hardware specs are crazy. Who wants to buy all that just to run Vista? Most people don't play hardcore games to want a system like that, so XP, or possibly Ubuntu remains the best option for them.

You don't need all of what's mentioned above. I have it running on 4 PC's in my house. The slowest one has an AMD Athlon 2300+, 1GB RAM, 128MB video card, 80GB IDE HDD.............runs just fine no problems at all.

thats true, i dont need so much, but im saying, ram is cheap.. basically all hardware is cheap. the min standards are s***ing..UP UP and AWAY from 1-2gb systems.

i was just suggesting that we all will upgrade eventually. vista is really build for the next 5 years.. not today.

i can run vista on my laptop (sony) 2gb ram 1.3 solo.. and its fine also.. just saying for really fast system.. you need the most you can get..

i agree,

vista is not the best option for most people.. now. but in 1-2 years, xp will be like 2000.. feel old is old.. vista is going to be accepted.. no fighting it. you will install it.. eventually.

then in 5 years, we will be here agian.. :)

I have a pc with 3 ghz. proc. 1 meg of ram, and still the Vista advisor software said i didn't qualify to upgrade. I needed a better graphics card. yeah, i'm going to go out and spend 100 bucks on a fancy card just to get vista. And for the people complaining about xp, I heard nothing bad about the os itself when it came out. And it upgraded easily on all the pc's i worked with at work. Some were below the min. requirements needed. Thats not the case with Vista, you really have to have a super pc. But besides that, its not a great os. Can't believe they spent all those years on the drawing board for this?

I had Vista running and let me tell you how bad it is.

I just went back to XP and my transfer rate and download rate Tripled! No lie I couldn't believe how much slower Vista is. I've posted this problem all over the internet and couple people said to turn a few things off and I did that and it did speed it up just a bit but still it was slow.

Networking... Now that's a nightmare! When I click on a network drive I'd might as well go to lunch while the courser spins and the green bar loads at the top. You wait and wait and wait... what a joke. This issue also happened on my second hard drive... I have no clue what Vista was thinking about but it sure wasted my day waiting for it to think. Again I researched this issue on the internet and turned off things as they posted on the internet still no luck.

Media Player... This ones a good one... Microsoft knows there is a issue with it. If you exit a video it keeps playing and the only way to turn it off is in Task Manager.

I have a brand new PC and it's maxed out in process and ram and Vista ran slow. Now don't get me wrong it looks pretty, but I need performance. I just talked to a friend of mine that's a network engineer for a large company and they spent a ton of money switching over to Vista he just called me to say they are switching back over 500 PC to XP because of Vista and it's issues. He said his network came to a craw because of Vista.

I really think Vista is another Microsoft screw up like ME was. I'm going to wait until the next version comes out after Vista. Because of Vista I wish I could change OS's now, but I need MS office and a couple more things that only run on MS OS's so I'm pretty much screwed until I find a way to convert out network around.

MS really screwed up and if you read around on the internet you will realize this. The people are complaining... DELL now is allowing XP to be installed on their PC's again because of the demand of XP over Vista... That should be a sign to MS if DELL wants XP over Vista.

When it boils down to it... Vista is just too slow and for you to see this reload XP and see how much faster you can do things.

Sad... Very Sad.

Been holding off upgrading until recently. Was fine with XP but got Vista pre-installed with a new laptop: Time moves forward for most mortals. Vista looks a bit prettier, the rest is OK - no big deal. Stop spinning turd.

The network issue was taken care of in the performance patch, I believe (no longer having issues with it).

Never experienced the WMP issue. Seems to play movies just fine for me, although I haven't used WMP more than about 3 times. I've been using the divx player quite a bit lately. Can't seem to get BSplayer to work anymore (in XP or Vista...some hardware thing, I am sure)

Seems like everyone's mad that this will only be an update rollup. I couldn't be happier. I think this is what a lot of people have been waiting for. No more downloading 800 updates the second I reinstall XP SP2. No more having to worry about third party apps to make the update process easier. Just install SP3.

I don't want any extra features. I can't imagine what they could add that I would like. That's what the new OS is for. If I want an upgraded XP, I'll use that. I'm glad they're keeping them separate.

Agreed

Exactly.

My sentiments exactly.

So basically, Microsoft is slinking their way into making their users buy Vista. So once SP3 is released for XP it will fix all of the problems sure, but who knows it will probably create more problems in the future that guess what? Microsoft won't fix. Basically you will have to resort to having to purchase Vista. Some people say it's good, I say it's good depending on what you want to do.

I think the reason to have SP3 is to prepare and advert new Vista services and features to general public who still under wrong impression that Vista is that bad. New SP3 will make Windows XP user more likely to buy Vista in a future.

> New SP3 will make Windows XP user more likely to buy Vista in a future.

You mean SP3 will make XP even worse than Vista and that will make people upgrade?

No. That is NOT what a service pack is for, nor should it be.

This thread from Elixus is worthless. Service Packs are an accumulation of bug fixes that were released previously, like one of the previous posters said "A Roll up".

On very rare occasions they introduce new features, but that is not the norm.

They definitely would not break things intentionally. It seems like a cynical way to look at things, considering Microsoft's past Service releases.

XP SP 3 is a good thing for Computer Techs like myself, much better than loading an old ghost image and waiting an hour for updates to run :)

the problem is that OEM computer builder/sellers are giving Vista pre-installed as standard,

and for a user to get XP they will have to pay for windows, and after spending a lot of $$$$ on a system, no one is gonna do this, then of course even if they did, they probably won't know or rather not attempt to install xp,

and you guessed it MS knows this, and plays on this, which of course is a bummer,

it's also hard for me aswell as a technician trying to tell people that currently speaking windows xp is overall better,

but most people only understand the simple things,

windows xp is old,
windows vista has the latest programming technology.
windows vista is recommended by manufacturers
windows vista is the future,

trying to denounce these simple beliefs is becoming quite difficult,

and as a good technician i don't support any OS until SP1 comes out,

so it's a difficult position for technicians, and for the consumers at the moment,

Vista is pretty much being chucked down consumers throats,

but at the very least it's nice to know that XP is getting SP3, but i feel it won't be anything special, rather all current windows updates just rolled into 1 package.

but as a technician still a good thing, especially now MS as axed Autopatcher XP (Don't get me started on that one)

i just hope that XP doesn't get dumped by MS, XP has been a great success for MS, and i hope they never forget that,

"Windows xp is old"

So? It still does everything I need and does it well.

windows vista has the latest programming technology.

Oooh, the latest programming technology! Well isn't that special.

windows vista is recommended by manufacturers

That's why they demanded Microsoft continue letting them sell XP I suppose.
http://www.bit-tech.net/...shelves_until_june_08/1

windows vista is the future,

You sound like a MS marketing droid. I'll decide what's in my future, thank you.

I agree that XP should not be dumped, at least for the moment. I'm not that much of a computer geek, and my only experience with VISTA was several, few minute sessions in a store with a display model. For now, I can't say that I'm too impressed with VISTA, plus the overall, general reactions to VISTA seems more negative, than positive. Drivers seem to be the main problem.
For now, I think I'll stick with XP.

Alex, I think you should reread the guys whole post and not just the bits that you quoted... it seems he pretty much agrees with you. OOOOoops!

I think he is pretty much saying that.

Your assessment is fairly accurate. To simplify things.

Vista is new:
- Driver Base is not as good
- Much heftier System Requirements
- 2GB RAM
- Video Card
- Slightly changed interface with a few bugs

XP is old:
- More established Driver Base
- Very minimum system requirements allow more users to run on older machines
- Virtually same requirements as W2K
- Does not support DirectX 10

Most of the major gripes of Vista have been resolved since release, and others will be fixed with SP1. It still doesn't alleviate the fact that you'll need a much better hardware to run the OS.

From a technical support standpoint it is a no-no to purchase a product before it is established enough to publish a Service Pack.

From a consumer perspective, be careful of the hardware you purchase by researching and you will be fine.

No more features? That's fine - don't want any. As Vista is an indication of the "features" the company is pushing, I can live without the dreck. Just fix what's there and get out of my life.

Vista rules

Vista drools.

... your life, apparently.

I'm waiting for the OS after Vista. I agree with others, I compare Vista to ME because XP vs 98 was a *huge* change in many ways. 98SE was far superior to ME simply because ME tried to push driver and interface changes that were really not needed for the OS.

The same goes for XP vs Vista. XP is stable now, it's very powerful, it's fully able to fill the needs for most people.

There's no compelling reason to upgrade to Vista for most users, including Gamers, because DX10 isn't going to be utilized exclusively by game makers, they're not that stupid to cut off such a huge customer base all in the name of moving to Vista.

Another reason why Vista will be slowly adopted is the total redesign of the DRM involved within Vista itself. We've already seen the leveraging of MS's monopoly power with DRM in cablecards. Cablecard support being exclusively Vista is going to kill off the home HTPC market as well unless you bow to the Microsoft altar.

The thing is, PC's are becoming more of an entertainment hub than ever before, and people aren't too happy about MS's stranglehold grip they are trying to put forth using that desktop monopoly power they have.

People are getting tired of subscriptions as well. A lot of software subscriptions are a way to bilk someone multiple times for a sale. It's one thing to put a product out and charge for updates, it's another to pay for a software product and then have to keep paying for it to stay working.

I dont' always want my pc's to be net-connected, exposed to possible vulnerabilities through viruses and malware, and internet enabled subscription verification services demand that. When a piece of software you have purchased legitimately can be taken down by buggy DRM (Vista activation, anyone?) and subcription verifications, there's a problem.

I hate it when people compare ME to XP or talk about upgrades. They have nothing in common. ME was the end of life for that entire code base. XP is based on the NT code stream and does not contain anything remotely related to the 3.1>95>98>ME lineage.

What you're trying to do is like when Bush says that Iraq is not like Vietnam because Iraq is in the desert and Vietnam was in the jungle. What he, and you, have missed is is that its not the place, but the situation is the same. Windows ME was crap, and Vista is also crap.

No ME was crap because it was slow and crashed a lot...

Vista is faster than XP, and never crashes...

So tell me how this compares?

Vista is only crap because you listen to idiots that don't know any better.

What really is the complaint of Vista? It wants more RAM? Well every OS since the begining of computers has done the same thing.

Same Post PentiumII CPU, 1gb RAM XP vs Vista = Vista Wins everytime... PERIOD.

And so is your opinion.

"Vista is faster than XP, and never crashes..."

BS, I used Vista for a month and it most certainly DOES crash. XP on the other hand, never. What does Vista do that XP can't? Nothing, that's what. Except slow down your system and annoy you.

Just about everything you stated is bass-ackwards... but even worse, even if there didn't exist proof of so, it wouldn't make SENSE... ergo totally idiotic:

1. XP is faster than Vista, been proven in beacoup tests... so many, that can't fathom how you could've missed them.

2. Vista crashes-- it's too new to NOT crash... XP does NOT crash because it's been fixed up the kazoo by now.

3. Vista, even if it was a masterpiece of coding, by necessity HAS to be at least a little bit crappy, just because it's so new AND still being modified as we speak.

4. Vista 32bit still does not handle ram well-- no matter how much you give it, it still is not able to release it well as needed-- necessitating constant reboots.

You'd know the last point for sure IF you did any 'meaningful multitasking / serious work'.

It looks like you don't get around the web much(#1), don't have a lot of common sense (#2 & 3)and don't do too much intensive work(#4) to be so opinionated...
remember Dan Akroyd, Jane Curtin & Gilda Radner on Weekend Update?

If at least you were a little more polite, you wouldn't invite such harsh retorts.

Yours truly,
Justi'Non-Idiot

You're nothing but an irrelevant apologist.

What planet are you living on? It definitely isn't Earth.

I'm not basing this on what others say, I'm basing it from 25 years of experience with M$' OSes. It just so happens that a quickly growing number of people agree with what is being said against Vista.

For everyone who has had few problems with Vista there are several more who are having nothing but trouble with it.

Silly rabbit, trix are for kids.

"No ME was crap because it was slow and crashed a lot..."

uh, yeah, true...

"Vista is faster than XP, and never crashes..."

*laughing* have you actually USED Vista?

"Vista is only crap because you listen to idiots that don't know any better."

Sorry, I've been using vista since the early betas and can tell you that from both a user and developer's perspective, Vista is crap. Any OS that requires me to run a development environment in "Administration" mode is not going to cut it. Plain and simple.

"What really is the complaint of Vista? It wants more RAM? Well every OS since the begining of computers has done the same thing."

Ok, that one is fairly accurate...

"Same Post PentiumII CPU, 1gb RAM XP vs Vista = Vista Wins everytime... PERIOD."

Was that english? Anyhow... I can guarantee you that benchmark for benchmark, XP on a PII will kill Vista on that same PII. In fact, I'm not even sure you CAN install Vista on a PII without the SSE extensions (someone correct me if I am wrong)...

Horse and Alex... I disagree with XP not crashing... I can crash it (both x86 and x64) versions easily...

Anyone is capable of crashing any OS. I believe their point is that XP is more stable and does less *randomly* and generally (aside from hardware failure) only crashes from user error.

So what, exactly, is *your* point?

Vista is nothing like ME, it does not crash randomly, Vista's problems are because it relies more on ram then accessing the hdd constantly.

Since the eyecandy utilizes your graphics card it doesn't affect performance. (at least on my machine I see no difference)

Drivers are another issue, still.

Vista is faster on newer pcs as that was what vista was designed for.

Admin? In Ubuntu you have to type a password for display settings. At least Vista does not require the password over and over everytime you access something that requires higher access.

Sure you get a popup that asks what you would like to do, but less of a nuisance.

I am sure there is some way to make Ubuntu behave better, but the average consumer isn't going to try, I couldnt even get sound to work.

An synaptics is still piss poor for updating or adding new programs.

The only problem I have had with vista is the included dvd creator, not sure if its vista or the install.

Moron!

Moron!

The password issue is a security feature. You can use root and you won't have to type in your password. Linux has a long way to go to be basic pc user friendly, but the learning curve is not steep. Synaptics is very easy for adding or updating. It is the programs that are not in the repository that are "piss poor" for updating.

and Vista is also crap.

In your ever so humble opinion.

You're nothing but a troll.

See? We can all fling stupid and useless insults.

In my case, it is to prove a point, whereas in yours, it is a lame attempt to stop an argument you are badly losing.

"constant reboots?" heh... maybe on your system... i reboot *maybe* once a week, usually less often.

"Doesn't handle ram well?" why, because the task manager says vista is using all your ram? Heh...

Nah, a lot of things cause random crashes in xp.... video issues, IE issues... yes, they're generally program crashes and not BSODs, but theyre craashes nonetheless. I have not seen an increase in frequency of crashes between xp and Vista. Havent really seen a decrease either, but we ARE talking about Windows here... the typical pattern of windows releases are that they improve in some areas and decline in others. *shrugs*

Wow bringing Politics into a computer Operating System discussion.

I think you know very little about both.

Frankwick made a very good assessment of the situation with his example.

I'd like for you to tell me specifically what you base your opinion on. Besides regurgitating what you have heard, or that you hate Microsoft. What in your experience makes Vista "crap"?

"Vista is only crap because you listen to idiots that don't know any better."

Sorry, I've been using vista since the early betas and can tell you that from both a user and developer's perspective, Vista is crap. Any OS that requires me to run a development environment in "Administration" mode is not going to cut it. Plain and simple.

Truth

Don't start the EOL clock on XP until and unless Vista SP1 delivers the goods. It'll have the Server 2008 kernel, but it better have a lot more than just that, though it's a great start...

I have both vista and xpPro on 2 different laptops both are vista ready.

i do find both are decent for the most part.
but i do lean to vista being ME 2.
why i say that is because users are in the middle of the war between "whos job is it to get my hardware/software working " MS or 3rd party?.
I think as a xp user (vista tested on both pc's) , If your hardware and software works fine, try the trial of vista and find that you having problems under vista with the pricey hardware/sowftware,plus get use to using the OS, its going to move you away from using vista on that pc.
now for this reason who looses ?
i think MS does.(lost a sale- users don't care whos job it is,they want it to work). The hardware and software already got my money,but the trial has not.
so why change to vista If this were you ?

i think that MS is betting that time is on there side
that at some point you will just move over to it.

Can we count on Sp1 for vista to help us?
i for one am not betting on it.

I am not saying that Vista is crap. I do find it to run smoothe for my basic use of browsing the internet.
If MS wants to make a sale on my xp pc
It needs to find a better method other then the current that puts me in the middle of
"who's job is it"

If that's the case then XP will be my final version of Windows. They can take Vista and shove it.

In fairness, this article should mention that it's a hotfix rollup for a lot of outstanding fixes, not just what is available on Windows Update. A lot of the QFE Hotfixes that are generally only available through support calls are included.

That said, it's not exactly the *last* update XP will see. It will continue to receive security updates through at least 2009, so I'm betting on at least one more "cumulative rollup" of security patches later on.

Perhaps M$ should realize that (insert new ms OS) will never have a life.

This happened with XP as well, no one wanted it when it first came out, looked too much like fisher price, once sp1 came out people adopted it, same will happen with vista.

Maybe, but it never had as much real problems as Vista is having now. Vista is Windows ME2. The main problem with XP at first was that it forced you to update your peripherals from pieces that only worked under the 9.x kernel to the NT kernel.

"once sp1 came out people adopted it, same will happen with vista."

Over my cold, rotting corpse!

"Vista is Windows ME2."

I couldn't agree more.

I've never understood the reasoning behind railing against the inevitable.

It just seems like such an enormous waste of time and effort.

Sort of the same issues that people are having with sound drivers that "worked" in XP, and video card drivers for hardware that worked in XP?

i'm perfectly happy not running windows at all. :)

While such anecdotal reasoning is good for wasting time, it does not accomplish much else.

When XP came out I actually liked it. I think most of the whining was about Luna, which I admit is ugly but was so easily turned off. Anyway, at that time there wasn't much else, Linux and BSD certainly weren't even close to being ready for consumers. That has changed now and if XP ever becomes unusable I'll be switching to something else. Vista sucks now and it will suck after SP1.

This is well and good, and is merely anecdotal of your experience.

The consumer market follows the business market. As of now, as it was when XP was released, many businesses are holding off. This is reflected in the consumer market. As businesses migrate, due to either necessity or availability, the consumer market will follow as it has always done.

This is inevitable. While there are always exceptions, such as yourself, they are by and large completely irrelevant as to the question of mass market adoption.

As to your prediction regarding Vista SP1, let us try and leave the reading of tea-leaves and crystal balls to the professionals, shall we?

I guess we should all just accept our fate and just die then? What a moron you are. If you are not willing to fight for something better you are part of the problem.

Please understand that when pointing out the inevitability of Windows Vista gaining market dominance I am not speaking from some absurd belief in things as fickle as fate but rather from tried and true realities such as basic market economics, social patterns, and behavioral observation.

The assertion that such things can be changed dramatically enough to have anything greater than the impact of a butterfly's redistribution of air during flight on the outcome of a hurricane on the other side of the world is akin to believing that one man can stand against the ocean to turn the tides.

I try to keep my motions against the grain within the realm of the attainable and not waste effort on things that are well beyond the scope of reality.

Guess what? The business market is putting off adopting Vista until at least sp1 and if that doesn't fix things well enough than XP may be a round somewhat longer. Or they might even switch over to Linux instead as it gets better all of the time now.

The difference is with cards that are SUPPOSE to work under Vista. [rolleyes] One reason why I switched from nVidia to ATI and as it turned out Vista thought that after a few ATI (x1650 Pro) driver updates, for the same card, under it that I had put in a different ATI card and warned me to reactivate or else and presided to reject my request afterwards. I wasn't going to call India and beg for permission to continue using Vista as I had to under XP after installing a virtual CD-ROM PROGRAM. Then it was time to switch to Ubuntu Linux. It may not be perfect, but it is still better than Vista.

BTW, I can still use some of my favorite Windows programs and games under Linux as well and in some cases they run better. And with constant updates to WINE this includes more and more of them as well.

And your anecdotal evidence is somehow superior?

You better czech yourself before you wrzech yourself!

What GoodThings2Life said!

And linux does....what for gamers?

Oh, right .....nothing!

Fight for something better?

Do you even know 'what' you are fighting for? Do you know what is better?

This is the common flaw in the anti-Vista rants. Most people have NEVER used it, have NO understanding of the OS architectural fundamentals, and try to compare it to OS concepts that are years behind what Vista is doing.

What is better? Better Performance? Better usability? Better future technologies?

Vista is basically competing with XP, how does that hurt MS?

People seem to think MS is stupid and don't get OS design, when in fact then tend to step too far ahead of the curve, and idiots in the technology press are not capable of even understanding what they are witnessing or reviewing.

Vista is the ONLY OS that has pre-emptive GPU multi-tasking, GPU virtualization, a Vector/Bitmap Composer, etc...

Vista even has a core display language model that extends from the screen to output devices, and unlike PDF like OS X uses, Vista's technology is a full 3D interactive implementation round trip.

This means that you can Remote Desktop to Vista and run 3D content because of the 3D Vector composer, and in the future Vista can print 'interactive' 3D animations when the output technology allows this to happen.

So how does this compare to XP or OS X? Well it doesn't because these are all things NEITHER OS or any other OS can do because they lack the fundamental architectual mechanisms.

There are so many technologies in Vista that other OSes won't see for YEARS it is scary, and the sad thing is all people can do is compare the 'only' features that XP or OS X have when trying to evaluate Vista.

That is great when comparing these older technologies, but if you miss 80% of what Vista is because its technologies simply DO NOT exist in any other consumer OS, you don't get what the OS is about, capable of, or doing.

There are reasons Vista can do graphical things other OSes simply cannot do, there is a reason the XBox360 gaming technology is at the core of the Video system design of Vista, there is a reason the OS has real-time recovery and hardware monitoring.

How does some of this translate to a better OS or better user experience? Pull a video card out of OS X or XP while it is running and put it back in, and see what happens, Vista just resumes saying the Video failed, no crash, no application loss.

And why would someone remove their video? When newer laptop technologies allow for external and docking station video buses, which means Vista can dock, and switch from a low power on board video to a dock station running a mutli-core GPU without any interruption...

This conversation of things like this could go on for literally hours, and just because MS doesn't list this crap because it 'confuses' people does not mean the technology is not there and there for a REASON.

People here seem to think Vista is failing in the business world. However, there are IT cycles in business, and they are based upon the company budgets and plans, not based on when MS releases a new OS.

I don't care if Vista was the perfect wet dream of every geek in the world, the business adoption rate would NOT be any different than it is now, with the exception of some smaller businesses being driving by inept IT people that don't know Vista and would rather call it crap than have to learn something new regarding technology to keep their customers or their job.

People also seem to forget that the MAIN contributors to the development of MS OSes is business customers. They get previews, do design consulting, do internal testing and work with OS concepts before the OS is even out of Alpha, let alone beta.

90% of the top corporations have had access to Vista before the top tier beta testers did by over a year.

If Vista was crap, or designed poorly, or not what business wanted, it would NOT EXIST as it does today. PERIOD. Business is what drives the core development of Vista.

Another factor in business adoption of Vista is the delay of Windows 2008 Server, which when paired with Vista, does some pretty impressive things. Even early business proponents of Vista that worked with MS have known ALL ALONG that they would wait till Server 2008 released before they started Vista deployments. Just like XP didn't get large scale distribution until Windows 2003 Server.

What does all this mean?

Vista won't be deployed until the planning/budget cycles of companies move forward.

Vista won't be deployed until Windows 2008 Server ships.

Vista is a 'business' designed OS, and if 'most' businesses hate it, it is their fault as most of the top business had direct hands on contact and testing with MS during the development of Vista...

So in two years if nobody and businesses aren't using Vista, then idiots can start calling it a failure.

However right now, Vista is doing better than XP did, and it took people a long time to realize XP was more than Win2k with a crayon interface, and it will take people a while to realize the benefits of the technologies in Vista as well...

Yet another visitor from the planet of Microsoft. [rolleyes]

http://www.winehq.org/

http://gaming.gwos.org/doku.php

Its a growing list......

I have to admit... for the first time I have actaully seen someone put forth a logical, well thought out, and convincing argument for Vista.

The only problem that I have with it is that while it is accurate, there are some omissions that need to be stated.

Vista, much like ME (except that ME was a complete and total failure, thankfully), is a proving ground for MSFT. Vista's goal was to be a base platform in preperation for Vienna (Windows7) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7). XP could never have been that platform and MSFT knew it. Hence why they put 5 years of development into Vista. They know first hand that having a good base operating system will guarantee them another 20 years leading the pack in desktop dominance. Many of the features that are in Vista will lay the groundwork for Vienna and will allow for some really big changes to the way that we use Windows (if rumours are correct, we are looking at a similar thing like the changes the occurred between 3.11 and 95).

Yes, Vista is not the best and yes, it is problematic and yes, it could have been a lot more... But, all in all, just realise that this is a stepping stone, not the final plateau...

(shoot me, I sound like I work for MSFT marketing, huh?)

Now, pack up all those features, turn them into a suppository, and start thinking what to say to everyone who has tried Vista and could use it because of it's problems or performance.

My point being: Forget Fantastic Features, as people are having problems that EXIST despite of them.
After that, what is your reason to update to a newer system if it requires more hardware... to will be slower or equal (even if softer for some), and doesn't allow you to run your soft when you have to do the simplest and most common of tasks? HOW CAN YOU ANSWER TO THAT?

That was impressive, you stated your point and didn't go off slandering the individual and had a very good rebuttal. I do agree and MS has stated as well that Vista is the core for what eventually will be the new Windows.

Also, I am sure you are aware the version of Vista we have now was only 2-3 years in the making as for some reason they decided to scrap 3 years of work (hence the lost features)

Gamers do not use Linux, for the occasional gamer sure it's nice but the majority, no. Same thing as music production, can't do that very well on Linux.

Wine will never be a replacement for Windows, this is the same argument Linux has been using for years saying how they will take over the desktop. Until it requires point and click with easy installation, its not going to happen.

Ubuntu is close but still far away from Windows or OSX.

WOW! that was so insightful! So he brings up a few good points and because YOU do not like Vista believe everyone else will follow.

Linux is still not ready for the average consumer. As stated earlier synaptics is still not very simple at adding new programs.

It does update whats already there easily but installing new apps, not so much.

Plus, business wise my understanding (correct me if I am wrong with proof) Linux actually costs more to maintain then Windows which is funny considering its free.

Moron!

Moron!

moron!

Ubuntu sucks. People will never adopt linux in mass if Ubuntu is there only choice. The only 2 distros that work best right out of the box is Mepis and PClinuxOS.

Moron! The code isn't even the same.

Even more of a moron! You don't even have a mind of your own.

And how is this any different than what he said?

He stated they did the same with XP.

Might even switch over to linux....now you're just being absurd.

A growing list of badly supported games that aren't supported until 3 months or more after release?

Yeah. Good stuff.

That's be great, if he had actually supplied any.

Unless, of course, you are referring to his expanded reasoning where he accounts for business adoption leading consumer adoption, which is hardly anecdotal. It's more like fact. You should try those sometime.

Brilliant riposte!

You insights and logic are a constant source of amazement.

/sarcasm

and warned me to reactivate or else and presided to reject my request afterwards. I wasn't going to call India and beg for permission to continue using Vista as I had to under XP after installing a virtual CD-ROM PROGRAM.

A two minute phone call. Their install support is in the US.

sjc001, proving once again he hasn't a clue what he's talking about.

Vista, much like ME (except that ME was a complete and total failure, thankfully), is a proving ground for MSFT.

ME was EOL for that platform. How was it a proving ground? Not trolling, just curious how you made such a connection. By that bar (proving ground), Windows 95 would be a better comparison.

Mepis is Ubuntu. If you are talking about codecs then you are a fool, it is so easy to add them.

Wrong. Mepis is Debian. 6.5 was Ubuntu in repository use only. It has always been distinct in the extras that Woodford adds in. If I was talking about codecs, I would have said "codecs" moron!

"As Windows XP nears its end-of-life," Perhaps M$ should realize that Vista will never have a life. That is why XP is due for SP3.

That's why they're going to release Windows 7 in 2009. That's going to be soon enough for most people to be able to skip Vista.

I will put it simply:

Ubuntu > better than Vista.
XP > better than Vista.
Ubuntu > as good as XP, or maybe better.

How idiotic! I don't care for Vista, but that's because XP is working fine for me. I also really like Linux because I think it is fun to tinker with, but Ubuntu isn't better than Windows, not yet anyway.

Ubuntu takes more effort to get to work than my previously stated Mepis and PCLOS, but even those aren't as easy as what most people appreciate about windows. Installing programs and ease of use.

I will put it simply as well:

Ubuntu > better than Vista. - your opinion
XP > better than Vista. - your opinion
Ubuntu > as good as XP, or maybe better. - your opinion.

Agreeed, VERY GOOD POINT! I AGREE 100%!

vista runs faster than xp on my machine, that's life boys.

Awesome! moron.

Vista runs fine on two of my three machines, rarely needs to be rebooted and has very few problems.
My other machine running XP on the other hand needs to be rebooted at least once a week to keep it running smooth.
Both systems are able to meet most peoples requirements at the moment and until people either decide to upgrade or are eventually forced to (by buying a new PC or eventually by the lack of support and compatibility that XP will eventually have) there is no real reason to fork out the dollars.
I myself enjoy the few available DirectX 10 games in all their glory rather than in a hobbled DirectX 9 mode